On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, omd wrote:
> But the old version of R101
> might have blocked, say, P5090, which changed the right to invoke
> judgement to its current form from:
>
>iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a
> judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The original judgement suggests that the pre-"substantial" version of
> Rule 101 implicitly blocked both Proposal 5086 (imposing the two-week
> limit on appeals, adopted 5F 0A 2P) and Proposal 5769 (which amended
> Rule 101 to include "substantial
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Addendum: what Wooble does in eir argument is replace "substantially" in
> > the actual text of R101 with "any". This is a large difference. -G.
>
> I'd say Infinity -> 2 weeks is substantial.
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Addendum: what Wooble does in eir argument is replace "substantially" in
> the actual text of R101 with "any". This is a large difference. -G.
I'd say Infinity -> 2 weeks is substantial.
4 matches
Mail list logo
